Category Archives: Science

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Crack Cocaine?

Will Earth Henceforth be Known as the Planet with the Reflective Personality?

I thought IPCC stood for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but after reading this article I think perhaps it should be changed Intergovernmental Panel on Crack Cocaine. Why say you?

Well, I was taken aback by an article n the Telegraph today titled “IPCC  ‘considering sending mirrors to space to tackle climate change.’ I mean you have to wonder if  they’re all smoking crack? Here’s some snippets from the Telegraph.

Reflective aerosols would be sent into space under a series of radical “geo-engineering” measures being considered by the UN climate science body to tackle climate change, leaked documents disclose.

What are they planning to do send deodorant into outer space? Some aerosol deodorants do use aluminum, which I suppose might reflect all that nasty sunlight. We might even freshen up the planet if we send up a rocket full of the right scent. Imagine not having to buy bathroom spray anymore? I guess this could put Fabreeze out of business, though.

Or, perhaps they could use tiny little mirrors? I mean it really does go hand-in-hand with the crack smoking. They could call it the “smoke and mirrors” solution to climate change, global warming, climate disruption. I think I’ll have to reflect upon this for a while.

The article closes with……..

A spokesman for the IPCC was unavailable for comment.

I wonder what the spoksman was smoking I mean doing?

 

More CO2 Insanity that you can read all about at the source below.

Source: The Telegraph

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Geoengineering, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Radiation, Science, Solar

Who says California doesn’t get Tornadoes?

We did today in Chico, California as evidenced by the above video. Chico  is north of Sacramento in California’s Central Valley as noted on the map below.

Comments Off on Who says California doesn’t get Tornadoes?

Filed under California, Co2 Insanity, Science, Weather

Real Time Earthquake Monitor

This is cool so I thought I’d put up a screenshot and a link to it for those interested in earthquakes. Perhaps now Danny Glover can check on all those global warming caused earthquakes easier.

Source:

2 Comments

Filed under Earthquakes, Science

Ten Physics Facts – Setting the Record Straight

Curious about some of the faux claims made by warmers and what the real deal is about them? Here’s something from Slaying the Sky Dragon.com that sets the record straight on 10 physics facts that some warmers like to twist to suit their vision of global warming.

This is a rebuttal based on Physics Trumps Right-Wing Ideology written by Mr. Puckerclust. Puckerclust begins his post thusly:

“Global warming deniers know as much about climate science as they do about brain surgery. Would you let them tell your doctor what to do about that tumor?

“Why do I–a professional physicist and lifetime member of the American Physical Society–accept the reality of human-caused global warming? Because I accept the following top-ten list of physics facts, which have never been disputed in the scientific literature. This is also why the American Physical Society of 47,000 physicists says “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring”.”

Before we set the record straight about those ten supposed physics facts, let’s also set the record straight on some preliminary information that Mr Puckerclust would like us to believe.

(a) The APS statement on climate change was not drafted or confirmed by “47,000 physicists” of the APS, but by the APS council.

(b) Many members of the APS have criticized the statement, incl. Harold Lewis who resigned in protest. Lewis’ analysis of the motivations behind the APS council position on climate change is better than anything we could come up with.

(c) Even APS editor Jeffrey Marque had to make the public admission ”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
(d) Furthermore, even if there was “consensus” on AGW by APS or any other institution this wouldn’t make the theory valid unless Puckerclust is also willing to accept that the Sun had revolved around the Earth prior to 1543.
(e) The snide title of Puckerclust’s essay implies that those on the political left could not possibly dispute his opinions. That alone is far from the truth.
(f) By the way, nobody is denying that global warming occurred during the last decade of the last century, it’s just that the emissions of carbon dioxide have nothing to do with it.

Now for our point by point response, not just one, but all ten.

You can read the rebuttal to all 10 at the source below.

Source: Slaying the Skydragon

Comments Off on Ten Physics Facts – Setting the Record Straight

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, John O'Sullivan, Science, Slaying the Sky Dragon

Now Climate Change Causes…..Spiders!

According to a graduate student I'm moving due to climate change. Should I call Bekins or United Van Lines?

Yes, we have a new one! Now global warming is going to cause Brown Recluse Spiders to not only soar in numbers, but move northward into new territory.

From the Daily Mail we get this ‘beauty.’

And now the brown recluse – or Loxosceles reclusa – spider population is growing, and predicted to expand into the northern states as a result of climate change.

People in the northern states better stock up on Raid!

But researchers are predicting the population will expand to parts of Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, South Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania by 2080.

By 2080? Come on now, I bet they couldn’t even tell me when I’m going to have ants in my kitchen over the next month, much less predict what Brown Recluse Spiders will be doing 69 years into the future!

So how did they figure all this out?

Study author Erin Saupe, a graduate student in Geology and a Biodiversity Institute student and other researchers used a predictive mapping technique to build a picture of where the spider may be found in the U.S. going forward.

They then applied future climate change scenarios to the spider’s current location in the Midwest and southern U.S.

‘These results illustrate a potential negative consequence of climate change on humans and will aid medical professionals in proper bite identification and treatment, potentially reducing bite misdiagnoses (sic),’ study author Erin Saupe, a graduate student in Geology and a Biodiversity Institute student, told science journal PLoS ONE.

Oh my! A graduate student did this? Whose major is geology? Using a predictive mapping technique? Using applied future climate chance scenarios? And from all this we get a potential negative consequence?

Now that certainly sounds like it’s ‘scientific’ doesn’t it? I mean I really should get a crystal ball and come up with my own potential scenario about what these spiders may or may not do in 69 years. I’d probably have an equal chance of being right. Or, I could cut my costs and just use the dartboard in the garage.

Source: The Daily Mail

Comments Off on Now Climate Change Causes…..Spiders!

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Science

Put your money where your CO2 is!

Want to earn 100 of these?

Want to make $10,000 AU? If you’re a warmer who believes the science is settled then it should be a piece of cake. According to this article from the Gladstone Observer……

Prof. Carter and Dr Evans have written numerous articles on the topic, including one in Quadrant Online co-authored by Alan Moran, an economist specialising in energy policy. They debunk the government’s case for human-induced climate change and a carbon tax, point by point.

But don’t be put off, surely with the overwhelming scientific consensus we keep hearing about, the truth really is out there? Peter Laux just wants you to find it.

He describes himself as a “militant trade unionist” – a member of the oldest rail union in the world, the Locomotive Division of the Rail Tram and Bus Union (RTBU), and vice-president of his local branch. He says:

AGW proponents constantly claim “overwhelming evidence” and yet incredibly never show any…

For those who despise the source of their prosperous lives and wish to burden those who can least afford it with carbon taxes and cripple the development in the Third World, I offer you $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.

OK warmers and warmettes who keep feeding us unprecedented global warming BS, here’s you’re chance to make a buck and once and for all settle the science!

Somehow I don’t think anyone’s going to win it.

Source: Gladstone Observer

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Science

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

By: John O’Sullivan

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind the man-made global warming new research shows the numbers were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K).

A team of dedicated international experts, known as the ‘Slayers,’ all highly qualified in their respective fields, spent the past year deliberating over the deep-rooted errors in the calculations employed in the greenhouse gas theory. Their findings are devastating to all those who claim carbon dioxide and the ‘greenhouse effect’ heats our atmosphere.

The standard argument of a clique of climatologists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is as follows:

  • A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)
  • The cool body “back-radiates” (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.
  • This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.
  • The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.

This is the so-called greenhouse effect (GHE) examined closely by a team of professors of physics, mathematics, astrophysics, chemistry and biology who joined forces to put the numbers under a fresh microscope.

This group of 20+ specialist scientists has given the infant (and generalist) science of climatology a much-need shake up. Indeed, the ‘Slayers’ say a monumental paradigm shift is now very much under way.

Below, in simplified form, we examine in three parts how their brilliant analysis has eviscerated one of the most costly and mistaken theories of modern science, man-made global warming.

Part One: Coolant Carbon Dioxide

In a recent ground breaking paper Professor Nasif Nahle proved that carbon dioxide (CO2) actually works as a coolant when it interacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to induce the air temperature to cool not a warm.

Physicist, Joe Postma, in this epic debunk further describes the correct application of the laws of thermodynamics to address how the thermal capacity (or conductivity) works with the ‘coolant’ CO2. As Postma tells us,

“Carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases merely serve to make the atmosphere cooler in daytime, warmer at nighttime. This is what empirical evidence tells us. ”

He asks us to think of how this interpretation differs from what the uneducated and pseudo scientists say that is “the greenhouse effect makes the planet warmer than it should be.” But we know that in truth what we actually observe is somewhat entirely different.

In the future, says Joe, people will declare: “The atmosphere keeps the planet from getting too hot in the daytime, and too cold at night-time”.

Just that simple realization alone kills the so-called ‘blanket’ analogy of greenhouse gas theorists stone dead.

Step Two: How the IPCC Picked Wrong Numbers from the Get-go

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

Postma, a recent addition to the team sums up how much getting those first numbers right matters:

“We all agree that the atmosphere has an “atmosphere effect.” But what is of interest to us is how this effect changes if the properties of the atmosphere changes (a little).”

In this excellent paper geologist, Timothy Casey, gives a calculation for how much temperature variation will be caused by changes in CO2. It tells us:

“If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide.”

What Casey shows is that in reality, a 10,000 ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by a measly one percent and given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000 ppm increase in carbon dioxide would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by 0.36 percent.

Casey finds,

“That would represent a 0.36 percent increase in thermal gradient, or a surface warming of 0.18 percent and a ceiling cooling of 0.18 percent of the total difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the affected air mass. In the case of a tropospheric carbon dioxide increase of 10,000 ppm, that would correspond to a warming of 0.125ºC, or one eighth of a degree Celsius at the earth’s surface.”

“However, even if this wasn’t a negligible enough effect, Casey finds the proverbial doubling of CO2 would only contribute a change of 0.0040C at the surface”.

Step Three: Exposing the Idiocy

Groupthink is ‘Step Three’ in our explanation of how climatology got itself into such a muddle. Here’s a perfect example of scientific idiocy displayed by someone who ought to know better. Postma shows how a reality disconnect by one such theorist makes a mockery of IPCC numbers when applied to the real world. He explains,

“Yesterday a professor tried to tell me that a blackbody (BB) would heat itself up if its radiation would shine back on it – if it was surrounded completely by a perfect mirror.

I told him that all that would happen is you’d get a standing electromagnetic wave between the BB and the mirror, with a frequency spectrum and flux density equal to that of the BB – there’d be no spontaneous increase of temperature.  50C is 50C and there’s no way to get more than 50C, from 50C.  The only way to get more than 50C is to bring in some outside work or something hotter than 50C.”

Postma then enlightened the perplexed professor that it’s impossible to make candles or insulation warm itself by its own radiation.  “If we could make a candle burn hotter by reflecting it’s light back onto it, that would have been discovered long ago.”

The Slayers thus ask us to put it all in terms of radiation and conduction being analogous modes of heat transfer.  Then it becomes plainly obvious and ridiculous.

Like his learned colleagues Postma suggests climatologists apply a little more common sense and joined up thinking; their heat transport equations should properly be addressed in terms of conduction such that radiation and conduction are simply MODES of heat transfer. If an object can heat itself via its own, or “colder” radiation, then it should also be able to heat itself by conducting with itself, or conducting with a cold body.

“An object conducting with itself to make itself hotter?  What the heck does that even mean?  An object conducting with a colder one and thereby becoming hotter?  I don’t think so,” insists Postma.

Thus when we start to accept that conduction and radiation are analogous modes of heat transfer, then it dawns on us all that the laws work the same way with both of them.

Therefore, by working through this ‘Three Step Greenhouse Effect Debunk’ we are left with only one conclusion: IPCC junk (generalist) science is well and truly busted by the specialists in their fields.

Source: John O’Sullivan

4 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, Science